Genetically Modified (GM) products: Saviour or scourge

By
Shivaprasad M Khened
Curator
Nehru science center, Mumbai

In an era of sound bytes and diminishing attention spans, phrases like “Bt
cotton”, “GM food” and “designer seeds” that herald major accomplishments in applied
science may not suffice as a proper counterpoint, to the highly creative and mind
grabbing sound bytes such as “Frankenfood” and “Terminator genes”. Recently
attention has been drawn to Genetically Modified (GM) agricultural products in India,
especially after the Government has given the go ahead to the use of genetically
engineered Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) cotton. Some people feel that GM technology is
immoral, unethical, and against nature, whereas others contend that it is, in fact
immoral and unethical to deny the potential benefits of GM crop improvements to
impoverished farmers and undernourished people especially in developing nations like
India. In this article we examine this debate, and discuss some of the benefits and
drawbacks of GM crops.

“Whoever could make two ears of corn, or two blades of grass grow upon a spot of
ground where only one grew before would ….do more essential service to his country, than the
whole race of politicians put together”---- The King of Brobdingnag, “Gulliver’s Travels”(Jonathan
Swift, 1727).

“I believe that we have now reached a moral and ethical watershed beyond which we venture in
to realms that belong to God, and to God alone. Apart from certain medical applications, what
actual right do we have to experiment, Frankenstein like, with the very stuff of life?” Prince
Charles, 1998.

As exemplified by the above quotes, throughout history, there have been those who have
embraced change and those who have clung to old ways, feeling known risks are better than
unknown benefits. So we should not be surprised that history is being replayed as we come to
grips with new issues like GM crops in the era of biotechnology.

What is Genetic Engineering?

Genetic Engineering involves altering the genetic make up of an organism either by addition or
deletion of gene(s) or parts of it in a manner where such changes are inherited in a Mendilian
fashion. In the present context, the word gene has been extended to mean segments of DNA,
which may or may not code for a protein. DNA is the short form of Deoxyribo Nucleic Acid, the
chemical stuff that genes are made of. GM foods are derived from plants whose genetic makeup
has been altered through genetic engineering.

Anxiety over GM crops

Societal anxiety over the GM food is understandable, and it is fueled by a variety of
causes, including consumer unfamiliarity, lack of reliable information on the current safeguards,
negative opinion and opposition from various interested groups, and a general lack of
awareness of how our food production system has evolved by embracing the scientific and
technological trends all through its history. The scientific community has neither adequately
addressed public concerns about GM food, nor effectively communicated the value and potential
of this technology while being honest about its perceived threats.

Population and food production

Farmers have moulded the evolution of crop plants for millennia, leading to rich diversity
especially in traits related to their planting or consumption. At the same time, global population
grew very slowly until the mid nineteenth century. It took almost 1800 years for the global
population to climb from an estimated 300 million around first century AD, to reach one billion.
But it took only 12 years to rise from 5 billion people in 1987 to 6 billion in 1999. Fortunately,
parallel scientific developments in agriculture have ensured that food production has so far kept
pace with the population explosion of the past century. It is in this context that the present GM
products need to be viewed and understood. This is more so in countries like India that have
very large growing populations.

Scientific advances in agriculture

Beginning with Mendel’s study of peas, and the development of quantitative genetics in
the early 20th century knowledge of genetics has been especially important in agriculture,
resulting in the development of high yielding varieties of crops. Agriculture production has
increased manifold in most parts of the world, including India. The Green Revolution is a direct
outcome of the application of the scientific advances in agricultural practice. We have managed
to breed new strains of crops like rice and wheat and more than double the yields over the
previous types. The Green Revolution used the knowledge of science to try to end world hunger.
This movement was aimed at bringing high-yield crops, which were able to thrive in harsh
conditions, to farmers in the developing world. The Green Revolution dramatically increased the
size of harvests and introduced modern farming methods throughout the world. Unfortunately
the fertilisers and pesticides used in this new method of farming has caused water pollution, soil
erosion and lowered soil fertility. It is therefore paramount that we switch gears and keep pace
with the current scientific developments and adopt Biotechnology in agriculture.

Most people who are concerned about modern biotechnology may have little knowledge
of the processes that have been used to transform crops in the past. Nor is it likely that they may
be aware that crops have been continually altered over time or that without human care, crops
may cease to exist. When compared to the gross alterations associated with wild species
hybridisation or the use of mutagenic irradiation, direct introduction of one or a few genes
through GM technology into crops results in subtle and less disruptive changes, which are
relatively specific and may even be predictable.

The brighter side of GM crops

In support of the argument for the utility of the GM crops, a few facts and figures in the context of
USA are reproduced here.

• The wide spread use of Bt cotton has dramatically reduced the use of organophosphate
pesticides. According to the National Center for Food and Agriculture Policy of the USA, the use
of Bt cotton resulted in 2.7 million pounds less use of chemical pesticides, and 15 million fewer
applications of insecticides, in 1999. Cotton production increased by 260 million pounds per
year, and net revenues increased by an estimated 99 million US$.
• Herbicide tolerant Soya beans reduced the weed control costs by 216 million US$ in
1999, and reduced herbicide applications by 19 million. Although biotech soybeans have led to a
great increase in the use of glyphosate herbicides, those herbicides appear to be much safer
than some that they replace. Moreover, herbicide tolerant crops encourage no till farming that
helps reduce soil erosion.
• Bt Corn saved an estimated 66 million bushels of corn from European corn bearer in
1999. Also, Bt corn should have lower levels both of insect damage and of some aflotoxins.
• Genetically engineered Papayas have provided Hawaiian farmers an effective new
means of coping with papaya ringspot virus, which has been decimating their crops.
• Bt potatoes dramatically reduced insecticide use, and herbicide tolerant sugar beets
reduced soil erosion; Apple trees resistant to fire blight bacteria gave increased yield.

GM Technology in India

In India, the usage of GM technology for crop improvement is just beginning to be accepted.
(Give web site address of table) The government of India, recognizing the significance of this
technology has, constituted a Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) under the
Forest and Environment Ministry with a mandate to go in to all aspects of the GM technology
before giving its approval for its acceptance. The GEAC has already given its approval for Bt
Cotton and is considering the proposal for GM mustard. In March 2002, the GEAC approved the
release into the environment of three transgenic Bt hybrid cotton varieties, with certain
conditions. Bt cotton contains the “Cry 1 Ac” gene and is resistant to the cotton bollworm, which
can cause heavy damage to crops. The GEAC has stipulated that fields where Bt cotton is
planted will be surrounded by a belt of land called “refuge” in which the same cotton variety will
be sown but which is non Bt. It said that the size of the refuge belt should take at least five rows
of non-BT cotton or 20 percent of total sown area whichever was more. An estimated 150,000
hectares was expected to come under Bt cotton during first year. The approval for the Bt cotton
has been given after receiving a favourable report both from the Department of Biotechnology
and from Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR).

Harnessing Bt gene
A tool for introducing genes into plants is useful only if scientists have found genes that they
want to transfer. Part of the hunt for desirable genes began inadvertently in Japan in 1901, when
bacteriologist Ishiwata Shigetane was asked to investigate the cause of a disease outbreak that
was killing large numbers of silkworms. Shigetane discovered that the cause of the outbreak was
a previously unidentified species of spore-forming bacteria, later named Bacillus thuringiensis, or
Bt.

Researchers were quick to see the value of the insect-killing bacteria. They then zeroed in on
identifying the genes associated with the production of Bt proteins. A pair of microbiologists
looking into why the Bt genes triggered production of their toxic protein only when Bt bacteria
started to produce spores gathered information about the genes. In 1981, Helen Whiteley and
Ernest Schnepf, then at the University of Washington, discovered that the insecticidal proteins
were found in a crystal-like body that was produced by the bacteria. They used recombinant
DNA techniques to isolate a gene that encodes for an insecticidal protein. By 1989, more than
40 Bt genes, each responsible for a protein toxic to specific groups of insects, had been
pinpointed and cloned by various researchers.

Bt Cotton
Bt cotton is genetically modified cotton, which though looks like ordinary cotton is far from
ordinary. The Bt cotton seeds are likely to yield nearly 10 to 15% more cotton and are expected
to need less than half as much insecticide as the normal cotton seeds. This improvement stems
from an additional gene that scientists have inserted in Bt cottonseeds’ genetic material. The
inserted gene encodes a toxic protein that can kill two of the prime predators of cotton plants –
bollworms and budworms. These caterpillars destroy millions of acres of cotton crops and are
the main reason why more than half the insecticide used worldwide is sprayed on cotton plants.

India, the world's third largest cotton producer, has so far allowed only a few companies
and research bodies to carry out field trials of GM crops. Traders say India's cotton yield is about
300 kg per hectare -- less than half the global average of about 650 kg. The impact of Bt cotton,
traders believe, will be felt only in the crops sown in June2003. India's cotton output in the
current crop year is estimated to rise to 15.6 million bales (of 170 kg each) from 14.0 million a
year earlier.

GM Mustard

The findings on GM mustard based on the tests carried out by two scientific testing labs,
namely the FIPPAT, Chennai and Sriram Institute, Delhi, have revealed that, the introduced
proteins in GM mustard do not alter the nutritional properties of the mustard plants. There are no
known toxic effects associated with these introduced proteins in mammalian systems nor do
they demonstrate any allergic potential. Furthermore, the introduced genes in mustard do not
alter the interaction of the mustard plant with its environment. The data for the evaluation of GM
mustard was obtained from 69 field trails conducted in 5 states and over a span of four years.
The result has also confirmed that GM mustard has a 20 percent increase in seed yield and 25
percent increase in oil yield over the best conventional varieties of mustard.

GM Rice

Rice is the world's second most important cereal crop after wheat and the staple diet for a two of
the six billion people on the planet. Many people in developing countries in particular depend on
rice, both for food and to make a living from farming. Recently, strains of rice have been
developed with biotechnology to increase yields by 35%, help the environment and improve the
health of people in the third world. This genetically modified rice promises many benefits for the
human race.

Increased rice yields are necessary as the world's population is predicted to grow 66% by 2050,
to 10 billion inhabitants. The new GM rice, which took 10 years and $100 million to develop, is
needed to feed the extra billions of people in traditional rice growing countries. It has already
been successfully tested in China, Korea and Chile. GM rice will be beneficial for the
environment as one of its characteristics is an increased capacity for greater levels of carbon
dioxide (30% more) absorption from the atmosphere through photosynthesis, thus contributing
to lowering the amount of greenhouse gases and preventing global warming. IR68144 is
another newly developed strain of GM rice which has artificially high levels of iron, zinc and
Vitamin A, to improve the health of people in third world countries, by preventing anaemia (which
results from lack of iron and zinc) and blindness (lack of vitamin A).

Vitamin A (retinol) deficiency is the world's leading cause of blindness, and affects 250 million
children. This vitamin is found in butter, green and yellow vegetables, liver, kidneys and milk.
Few of these foods are available for those in developing countries. Vitamin A is required for the
epithelial tissues (skin, mouth) and vision in dim light, as it forms visual purple in the retina of the
eye. It is difficult to reach the malnourished with pills, so GM rice that can boost vitamin A levels
is important. The rice contains three transplanted genes that allow it to produce kernels with
beta-carotene, a compound converted into vitamin A in humans.

GM in global context

In the global context, the first transgenic plant was developed in 1982, but it was a further
13 years before transgenic crops were grown on any significant scale. Currently the area under
GM plantation is estimated to be over 50 million hectares in the west. The USA has extensive
areas under GM Cotton, Corn, Soya and Canola. Argentina’s Soya crop is 95% GM, and a third
of Australia’s cotton crop is GM.

Above paragraphs have highlighted the importance and need of GM food in the present context.
However we also need to look at the darker side of the GM crops and weigh the pros and cons
before one can pass any judgment on this newfound technology.

The darker side of GM crops

Like any other technologies even the GM crop is expected to have its own darker side, which
one needs to look at and address. Organisations such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth
have whipped up a storm of protest. They have argued, “Once the GM genie was out of the
bottle it could never be put back in”. They have helped to harden attitudes towards GM foods
across the continent, leading to the European Union passing legislation that require all modified
produce to be clearly labelled on supermarket shelves. However, despite the suspicion with
which GM food is regarded in Europe, the UK has embarked on trials of GM crops to assess
their safety and value for consumers. The issue of genetic modification being used by
commercial industries has also come under enormous criticism and is still being hotly debated
by people from all walks of life. However, the studies continue and no one can be sure of the
ramifications involved.
The problems concerning herbicide resistance

There is growing concern that many of the insects can gradually evolve to develop a
resistance to the insect-resistant crops, if these crops become widespread. Of course, even
with the use of insect sprays such as Bt or DDT, the development of resistance by pests has
always been a danger. However, the problem is much more acute in GM crops, as they
produce the toxin continuously, so the insects' exposure to it is much longer. Many scientists
argue that related weed species could acquire herbicide resistance also, through pollen
transfer from transgenic crops- e.g. transgenic oats could interbreed with wild oats, spreading
their herbicide resistance to the wild oats, which is undesirable as their wild relatives are
considered to be weeds. Herbicide resistant crops could also increase the amount of herbicide
used. Farmers who sow such crops may simply develop the philosophy that, since the crops
are herbicide resistant, they can spray as much of it onto the plantation as they wish, to control
the weeds, without harming the crops. Increased herbicide use is detrimental to the
environment as it pollutes waterways and the groundwater, affecting the organisms living in
these areas. As well as waterways, herbicides can have adverse ecological effects on natural
habitats near farmlands, endangering other plants. Despite the assurances of scientists that
GM crops will not have effects on 'friendly' insects, recent research by the Cornell University
shows that this may not be the truth. In May 1999, the journal Nature reported that researchers
from Cornell University found that monarch larvae feeding on milkweed dusted with Bt corn
pollen had a 44% mortality rate and that survivors were stunted. These laboratory findings
were reinforced by a subsequent field study conducted at the University of Iowa, which
reached similar findings. According to The Journal of Environmental Entomology, studies
conducted in 1999 at the Swiss Federal Research Station for Agroecology and Agriculture in
Zurich found that the mortality rate of the beneficial green lacewings larvae increased after
eating Bt toxin similar to that found in Bt corn. Other studies have also suggested that
increased mortality among insects due to the introduction of genetically engineered Bt crops
could reduce the food supply for insectivorous birds or other insect predators, such as bats.

Bad effects of Bt cotton

• US farmers have suffered losses due to bans from European and Asian markets
• Bt plant pesticides will trigger allergic reactions in those who consume the novel proteins
• Significant number of non target insects such as, Monarch and endangered Blue Karner
butterflies, may be harmed by wide spread use of Bt plants
• Intrinsically haphazard methods of splicing foreign genetic material could create
unintended consequences, such as altering plants nutrition or toxicity
• Pests will develop resistance to Bt from such continuous exposure, with consequent loss
of an important organic pesticide alternative
• Bt produced by genetically engineered plants might accumulate in the soil, unlike organic
Bt sprays

Bt plant pesticides could act like allergens

Over the past decade, the scientific and medical communities have become increasingly
concerned about the potential of genetically engineered foods to cause allergies. GE foods often
produce “novel” proteins that are new to the human diet and are most often derived from
bacteria, as is the case with all Bt crops. Allergies are triggered by aberrant immune system
responses, which often occur when a susceptible person is exposed to a new food (or food
protein). It is thought that food allergies afflict 2-2.5% of adults and 6-8% of children,

Allergenicity and StarLink

StarLink is a type of genetically engineered Bt corn that produces a pesticidal protein called
Cry9C. Although EPA approved StarLink only for use as animal feed, it entered the human food
supply because it’s developer, Aventis Crop Science, violated its stewardship agreement with
the EPA. Cry9C is a suspected human food allergen. Expert advisors to EPA have stated that
even billionths of a gram of Cry9C in foods cannot be considered safe, and have called on the
FDA to step up its investigation into Cry9C’s potential health impacts. The report of this crop
entering India as an aid has even stormed the parliamentary debate. There is also a feeling that
all pesticidal Bt crops produce Cry proteins closely related to StarLink’s suspected allergen.

Bt soil impacts

Healthy soil contains a large array of microscopic organisms that include bacteria, fungi, rotozoa,
insects, nematodes and other species. All contribute to recycling biological waste and providing
essential elements for plant growth. New York University researcher Guenther Stotzky and
others have found that transgenic Bt toxin binds to soil particles and remains toxic for up to 234
days. Only a limited number of studies are currently available that examine impacts of Bt on soil
organisms, and there is inadequate data for any meaningful assessments of the impacts of Bt
toxin on soil ecosystems.

Insect resistance to Bt crops

Bt crops produce the toxin throughout the plant’s life. Consequently, the pests’ ongoing
exposure to Bt promotes development of resistance to the toxin. This happens because the
individual insects not killed by the Bt will survive and reproduce. Over many generations, the
number of resistant pests increases. This change in pest populations can render both Bt crops
and sprays ineffective. Bt resistance has already been noticed among some insect populations.
Scientists generally agree that widespread use of Bt crops will lead to widespread insect
resistance in a few years.

Science and ethics

There is a general consensus among ethical analysts; echoed by many scientists and endorsed
by the public that science generally has performed ethically. Science has produced knowledge
and technologies whose benefits are clear and outweigh relevant costs or risks. Therefore one
can say that Agricultural biotechnology will likely provide benefits in the future that outweigh
risks/costs and therefore current biotechnological agriculture practices are ethically justifiable.
Usage of Biotechnology in agricultural practices can therefore be predominantly justified using
utilitarian/consequentialist terms since it may confer benefits (or benefits that outweigh costs or
override risks), and is engaged in justifiable practices.

Conclusion
In conclusion one can say that expected beneficial outcomes are the sole basis for justifying
present agriculture practices and policies. Crops must be transformed so that health and
nutritional properties can be added or enhanced, or allergenic properties eliminated. There will
have to be legal and institutional successes as well; for instance, the patent process will have to
be successfully negotiated both domestically and internationally. Differences in the cultures of
medical, materials, energy, and agricultural research will have to be resolved. Organisations and
institutes involved in agricultural biotechnology may have to adjust to the realities of dealing with
not just one or two government agencies, but perhaps regional, state/provincial, or even local
bodies such as health departments. The products must be such that their first consumers the
farmers can easily adopt and grow these crops. Finally, future biotech products ultimately will
have to reach and be accepted by the ordinary consumer. This means these products will have
to be compatible with consumer’s tastes and preferences, lifestyles, and basic values. Most
important, these products will have to be available and affordable, or they will fail. In short,
genetically modified foods will actually have to be beneficial in order for them to be ethical. Will
they be beneficial? Will they succeed at each step in the chain, from the laboratory, through
regulatory assessment, through farmers’ fields, to the dinner table? We do not know, and one
can argue that we cannot know right now. Science, law, agriculture, and economics are all
human enterprises, and predictions about human enterprises (except under a set of tightly
controlled assumptions) are notoriously unreliable.

********************************************************************************************

TABLE FOR BOX ITEM

GMO Field Trials in India

Organism Bell
Common
pepper
Name:
Gene: Snowdrop (Galanthus nivalis) Lectin gene
Organisation:
M/s Rallis India Ltd., Bangalore- Tata group company
Purpose ofResistance
release: against lepidopteran, coleopteran & homopteran pests; transformation experiments in
progress.
Organism Brassica
Common/ Name:
Mustard
Gene: Barstar, Barnase, Bar
Organisation:
M/s Proagro PGS (India) Ltd., New Delhi- Proagro owned by Hoechst Schering AgrEvo
Purpose ofTorelease:
develop better hybrid cultivars suitable for local conditions; over 15 locations contained field trails
completed.
Organism Common Name: Brinjal
Gene: Cry1A(b)
Organisation: M/s Proagro PGS (India) Ltd., New Delhi-Proagro owned by Hoechst Schering AgrEvo
Purpose of release: To develop plants resistant to lepidopteran pests; glass house experiments in progress.
OrganismBrinjal
Common
Name:
Gene: Bt gene
Organisation:
Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi
Purpose To
of release:
impart lepidopteran pest resistance, transformation completed, green house trials completed and one
season field completed
Organism
Cabbage
Common Name:
Gene:
Cry1H/Cry9C
Organisation:
M/s Proagro PGS (India) Ltd., New Delhi- Proagro owned by Hoechst Schering AgrEvo
Purpose
To develop
of resistance to pests; glass house experiments in progress
release:
Organism
Cauliflower
Common Name:
Gene:
Barnase, Barstar and Bar
Organisation:
M/s Proagro PGS (India) Ltd., New Delhi- Proagro owned by Hoechst Schering AgrEvo
Purpose
To develop
of hybrid cultivars for local use; glass house experiments in progress
release:
Organism
Cauliflower
Common Name:
Gene:
Cry1H/Cry9C
Organisation:
M/s Proagro PGS (India) Ltd., New Delhi- Proagro owned by Hoechst Schering AgrEvo
Purpose
To develop
of resistance to pests; glass house experiments in progress
release:
Organism
Cauliflower
Common Name:
Gene:
Bt gene
Organisation:
Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi
Purpose
To impart
oflepidopteran pest resistance, transformation completed, green house trials completed
release:
Organism Common
Chilly Name:
Gene: Snowdrop (Galanthus nivalis) Lectin gene
Organisation:
M/s Rallis India Ltd., Bangalore- Tata group company
Purpose ofResistance
release: against lepidopteran,coleopteran & homopteran pests; transformation experiments in
progress.
Organism
Cotton
Common
Name:
Organism
Gossypium
Scientifichirsutum
Name:
Gene: Cry1A(c)
Organisation:
M/s MAHYCO, Mumbai-joint venture with Monsanto
PurposeTo
ofdevelop
release:resistance against lepidopteran pests; Multicentric field trials in over 40 locations completed and
further contained field trails in progress
Organism
Mustard / rape seed
Common Name:
Gene:
Bar, Barnase, Barstar
Organisation:
Delhi University, South Campus, New Delhi
Purpose
Plant transformations
of completed and ready for green house experiments
release:
Organism Common
Mustard/ rapeseed
Name:
Gene: Arabidopsis annexin gene
Organisation:
Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi
Purpose ofTransformation
release: completed, Green house trial completed, ready for field-trials for moistureresistance stress
Organism
Potato
Common Name:
Organism
Solanum tuberosum
Scientific Name:
Gene:
Bt toxin Gene
Organisation:
Central Potato Research Institute, Simla
Purpose
To generate
of plants resistant to lepidopteran pests. Ready to undertake Green House trials.
release:
Organism Common
Potato Name:
Organism Scientific
Solanum tuberosum
Name:
Gene: Gene expressing for seed protein containing lysine obtained from seeds of Amaranthus plants (Ama-1
gene)
Organisation:
Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi
Purpose ofTransformation
release: completed and transgenic potato under evaluation.
Organism
Rice
Common Name:
Organism
Oryza sativa
Scientific Name:
Gene:
Bt toxin genes
Organisation:
Bose Institute, Calcutta
Purpose
To generate
of plants resistant to lepidopteran pests. Ready to undertake Green House testing.
release:
Organism
Rice
Common Name:
Organism
Oryza sativa
Scientific Name:
Gene:
Reporter genes like hph or gus A
Organisation:
Tamilnadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore
Purpose
To studyofextent of transformation
release:
Organism
Rice
Common Name:
Organism
Oryza sativa
Scientific Name:
Gene:
Selectable marker genes e.g. hygromycin resistance and gus
Organisation:
Delhi University, South Campus, New Delhi
Purpose
Gene regulation
of studies. Transformations completed.
release:
Organism
Rice
Common Name:
Organism
Oryza sativa
Scientific Name:
Gene:
Bt toxin gene
Organisation:
Indian Agricultural Research Institute sub station at Shillong
Purpose
To impart
oflepidopteran resistance, transformations in progress.
release:
Organism
Tobacco
Common
Name:
Organism
Nicotiana
Scientific
tabacum
Name:
Gene: Bt toxin gene Cry1A(b) and Cry1C
Organisation:
Central Tobacco Research Institute, Rajahmundri
Purpose To
of release:
generate plants resistant to H.armigera and S.litura. One round contained field trial completed. Further
evaluation under progress.
OrganismTomato
Common
Name:
OrganismLycopersicon
Scientific esculentum
Name:
Gene: Cry1A(b)
Organisation:
M/s Proagro PGS (India) Ltd., New Delhi-Proagro owned by Hoechst Schering AgrEvo
Purpose To
of release:
develop plants resistant to lepidopteran pests; glass house experiments and one season contained field
experiment completed.
Organism Common
Tomato Name:
Organism Scientific
Lycopersicon
Name:
esculentum
Gene: Snowdrop (Galanthus nivalis) Lectin gene
Organisation:
M/s Rallis India Ltd., Bangalore- Tata group company
Purpose ofResistance
release: against lepidopteran,coleopteran & homopteran pests; transformation experiments in
progress.
OrganismTomato
Common
Name:
OrganismLycopersicon
Scientific esculentum
Name:
Gene: Bt gene
Organisation:
Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi
Purpose To
of release:
impart lepidopteran pest resistance, transformation completed, green house trials completed and one
season field completed

Source: The Biosafety Information Network and Advisory Service (BINAS), United Nations Industrial Development
Organization (UNIDO).